Torts - affirmative duty to act

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:39 am

Torts - affirmative duty to act

Postby phillyboy101 » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:16 pm

Just a question about the tort affirmative duty to act issues. So there's 'special relationship' duties, and then theres landover/invitee/licensee duties. So i guess what I'm wonding is categorically are is landowner/invitee relationship a subcategory of one of these special relationships? For example, in a slip-and-fall question, is there negligence on the store owner on two theories - employer/customer relationsip and landowner/invitee theory? Or should these be categorized as two alternative affirmative duties to act, both of which apply in this situation.


Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Torts - affirmative duty to act

Postby ineptimusprime » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:59 pm

I wondered about this too. The owner/invitee and special relationship are functionally the same thing, but are they in any way different?

If it came up on an exam, I'd either quickly talk about both of them, or somehow conflate the two into one analysis.

Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:01 pm

Re: Torts - affirmative duty to act

Postby rustyyoda » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:58 pm

I would categorize them as alternatives in the interest of time/efficiency. I would say something like, "Defendant owed a duty to plaintiff based on the special relationship between them: business invitor-invitee recognized in the Restatement. Alternatively, the plaintiff can also argue that the defendant owed a duty based on the employer and customer relationship. Because both work to establish a duty in this case, either would be sufficient to meet the element of duty."

Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wittywitless and 3 guests